California Supreme Court Boosts Premium Pay For Meal, Rest and Recovery Break Violations

On the heels of Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC recognizing a rebuttal presumption of meal period violations based on the employer’s time records alone – as discussed in our prior blog post – the California Supreme Court has, in another blow to employers, ruled that the premium pay required where the employer does not provide meal, rest or recovery periods is not based on the hourly rate of pay (as had previously been understood).  In essence, the California Supreme Court has found that the “rate of compensation” for the purpose of determining the additional hour of pay due to employees who are not provided meal, rest or recovery periods is synonymous with the overtime rate of pay and must include all nondiscretionary payments, not just hourly rates.

Continue reading

Will California’s COVID-19 Rehiring and Retention Requirements Outlive the Pandemic?

As we dream of a “post-COVID” world, some obligations stemming from the pandemic will certainly be with us for some time.  One such obligation for some employers to note is California’s rehiring and retention requirements.

California Senate Bill 93, which added Labor Code section 2810.8, brings statewide requirements for covered employers to offer available job positions to employees laid-off due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Covered businesses include hotels, private clubs, event centers, airport hospitality operations, airport service providers, and those providing janitorial, building maintenance or security services to office, retail or other commercial buildings.  This section also applies even when an employer experiences certain ownership or organizational changes, for example, a change in ownership where the business is conducting the same or similar operations as before the COVID-19 state of emergency.

The law requires that, within 5 business days of establishing a position, a covered employer offer its employees laid off due to COVID-19 pandemic, in writing, “all job positions that become available [after its effective date] for which the laid off employees are qualified.”  Such qualification is determined based on the laid off employee holding the same or similar position at the time of the recent layoff.  If more than one employee is entitled to preference for a position, the employer must offer the position to the laid off employee with the greatest length of service on the employee’s date of hire.  The employee is afforded 5 business days to respond to the offer. 

Continue reading

Return of California’s COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave

By Andrew J. Sommer and Ashley D. Mitchell

California has just reinstated the COVID-19 specific paid sick leave law that expired at the end of 2020 but this time with a twist.  As we discussed in a blog post last year, California enacted the 2020 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave law to extend benefits to employees not covered by the paid benefits provision of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).  While the FFCRA’s paid sick leave provision lapsed on December 31, 2020 along with California’s 2020 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave law, California has just passed, effective March 29, 2021, the 2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave law extending benefits again with significantly expanded eligibility.

Eligibility Requirements

The 2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave law requires all California employers with more than 25 employees to provide COVID-19 related paid sick leave (up to 80 hours) to employees who cannot work or telework due to the reasons discussed below.  This paid leave is in addition to any payment that was provided under the previous COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave law expiring on December 31, 2020.  The 2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave law does not apply to independent contractors, unlike the previous law, and expands upon the eligibility criteria.  The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has issued 2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave FAQs offering detailed guidance on this new law.

Covered employees are now eligible under the 2021 COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave law if they are unable to work or telework due to any of the following reasons: 

  • The covered employee is subject to a quarantine or isolation period related to COVID-19, as defined by an order or guidelines of the State Department of Public Health, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or a local health officer who has jurisdiction over the workplace
  • The covered employee has been advised by a healthcare provider to quarantine due to COVID-19, or is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and is seeking a medical diagnosis
  • The covered employee is caring for a family member (as defined) who is either subject to a quarantine or isolation period or has been advised by a healthcare provider to quarantine due to COVID-19
  • The covered employee is caring for a child whose school or place of care is closed or unavailable due to COVID-19 on the premises
  • The covered employee is attending a vaccine appointment or cannot work or telework due to vaccine-related symptoms
Continue reading

California Supreme Court Deals Blow to Employers, Recognizing a Rebuttable Presumption of Meal Period Violation Based on Time Records Alone and Prohibiting Rounded Time Punches

shutterstock_litigationThe California Supreme Court has largely been silent on meal period questions since its seminal decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Brinker), clarifying that an employer satisfies its obligation to provide meal periods where it “relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes control over their activities and permits them a reasonable opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not impede or discourage employees from doing so….”  Brinker made clear that an employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work is performed during these breaks.  Despite this silver lining for employers, litigation has proliferated post Brinker in the form of class actions seeking premium pay – one hour’s pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday a meal period is not provided – as well as collective actions under the Private Attorneys Generals Act (PAGA) pursuing penalties for alleged meal period violations.

While the Brinker decision can be parsed to support an employer’s or employee’s legal position, the Supreme Court has just issued a notable class action decision in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (Donohue) dealing a resounding blow to employers by, for the first time, prohibiting rounding of time punches for meal periods and creating a presumption of a meal period violation based on the employer’s time records.

In that case, the employer, AMN Services, maintained policies and procedures for Continue reading

Announcing Conn Maciel Carey’s 2021 Labor and Employment Webinar Series

2021 Labor and Employment Webinar Series

The legal landscape facing employers seems as difficult to navigate as it has ever been.  Keeping track of the ever-changing patchwork of federal, state and local laws governing the workplace may often seem like a full-time job whether you are a human resources professional, in-house attorney or  business owner.  Change appears to be the one constant.  As President Trump’s Administration comes to an end, employers will continue to closely track the changes taking place at the NLRB, the DOL and the EEOC.  At the same time, a number of states will continue introducing new laws and regulations governing workplaces across the country, making it more important than ever for employers to pay attention to the bills pending in the legislatures of the states where they operate.  This complimentary webinar series will focus on a host of the most challenging and timely issues facing employers, examining past trends and looking ahead at the issues most likely to arise.

Conn Maciel Carey’s complimentary 2021 Labor and Employment Webinar Series, which includes (at least) monthly programs put on by attorneys in the firm’s national Labor and Employment Practice, is designed to give employers insight into legal labor and employment developments.

​To register for an individual webinar in the series, click on the link in the program description below. To register for the entire 2021 series, click here to send us an email request, and we will register you. If you missed any of our past programs from our annual Labor and Employment Webinar Series, click here to subscribe to our YouTube channel to access those webinars.


2021 Labor & Employment Webinar Series – Program Schedule

California Employment Law Update for 2021

Wednesday, January 20th

Marijuana, Drug Testing and Background Checks

Tuesday, July 13th

COVID-19 Vaccine: What Employers Need to Know

Thursday, February 11th

Employee Misconduct Defense & Employment Law

Wednesday, August 11th

Employment Law Update in D.C, MD, VA and Illinois

Wednesday, March 24th

Employee Handbooks, Training and Internal Audits

Tuesday, September 21st

Withdrawal Liability Pensions

Wednesday, April 14th

NLRB Update

Tuesday, October 19th

ADA Website Compliance Issues –  Best Strategies for Employers

Tuesday, May 18th

Avoiding Common Pitfalls: Non-Compete, Trade Secrets and More!

Wednesday, November 10th

What to Expect from DOL Under the Biden Admin.

Wednesday, June 16th

Recap of Year One of the Biden Administration

Tuesday, December 14th

   

See below for the full schedule with program descriptions, dates, times and links to register for each webinar event.

Continue reading

[Client Alert] New California Employment Laws for 2021 Will Leave Their Mark

By Andrew SommerFred Walter, and Megan Shaked

2020 has been another banner year for California employment laws, with legislation and Cal/OSHA rulemaking associated with COVID-19 prevention and reporting taking center stage.  In our annual update of new employment laws impacting California private sector employers, we lead off with California’s COVID-19 related laws, given their far-reaching impact on the state’s workforce during the pandemic as employers continue to implement measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace.  We have also addressed other substantive legislative developments, particularly in the areas of wage and hour law and reporting of employee pay data.  Unless otherwise indicated, these new laws will take effect on January 1, 2021.

COVID-19 Related Rulemaking and Legislation

Temporary Emergency COVID-19 Prevention Rule Not to be outdone by Virginia OSHA, Oregon OSHA or Michigan OSHA, Cal/OSHA adopted an onerous COVID-19 specific temporary emergency regulation effective November 30, 2020.  Below is a detailed summary of how we got here, as well as an outline of what the rule requires.

On November 19, 2020, the California’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board) voted unanimously to adopt an Emergency COVID-19 Prevention Rule following a contentious public hearing with over 500 participants in attendance (albeit virtually).  The Emergency Rule was then presented to California’s Office of Administrative Law for approval and publication.  The Rule brings with it a combination of requirements overlapping with and duplicative of already-existing state and county requirements applicable to employers, as well as a number of new and, in some cases, very burdensome compliance obligations.

The Standards Board’s emergency rulemaking was triggered last May with the submission of a Petition for an emergency rulemaking filed by worker advocacy group WorkSafe and National Lawyers’ Guild, Labor & Employment Committee.  The Petition requested the Board amend Title 8 standards to create two new regulations Continue reading

New COVID-Related State Leave Laws Fill The Void Left By Federal Paid Leave Laws

As the U.S. is entering the third wave of COVID-19 as virus cases continue to rise nationwide, employers should not only be aware of their obligations under the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act, but also recent state laws such as California’s COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave and New York State’s COVID-19 Leave Law.

As we have discussed in a prior blog post, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) requires private employers with 500 or fewer employees to provide paid sick leave generally when an employee is unable to work because the employee is experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or has a bona fide need to care for a child whose school or child care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19. 

Continue reading

Challenges to New California Independent Contractor Law and Ban on Mandatory Arbitration Agreements Wind Through the Courts

shutterstock_gavel


As expected, there have been a number of legal challenges to California Assembly Bills 5 and 51, both of which were signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom and set to go into effect on January 1 of this year.

Continue reading

2020 Legislative Update for California Employers

California flagBy Andrew J. Sommer and Megan S. Shaked

Following the 2018 legislative session, which was dominated by laws responding to the #MeToo movement, 2019 has produced a long list of new employment laws on a myriad of topics.  From a new test for determining independent contractor status to a ban on no rehire agreements and revamped reporting standard for serious workplace injuries and illnesses, 2020 brings significant changes for California employers.  Though many of these laws will add items to the HR to-do list, employers have at least secured a one-year reprieve for completing mandatory harassment prevention training introduced last year.

Key changes affecting private sector employers are summarized below.  Unless otherwise indicated, these new laws take effect January 1, 2020.

Continue reading

California Employers Should Think Twice Before Inserting No Rehire Language in Settlement Agreements

AB 749California has just passed Assembly Bill (AB) 749 resolving an ambiguity under current case law by generally prohibiting an employer from requiring, in settling an employment dispute, that a current or former employee agree not to obtain future employment with that employer.

A similar issue arose last year in Golden v. Cal. Emergency Physicians Med. Grp., in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the no hire provision contained in a settlement agreement between a physician and his former employer, a physician medical group, constituted a “restraint of a substantial character” on the physician’s medical practice and therefore violated California’s non-compete law, Business and Professions Code section 16600.  Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found that the agreement’s preclusion of the physician from working at “any facility owned or managed by” the employer was lawful but that it violated Section 16600 to the extent that it permitted the employer to terminate the physician from employment with any medical facility where the employer contracts or may later contract for services.

AB 749 expands on this Ninth Circuit ruling by barring any agreement to settle an employment dispute from containing a provision “prohibiting, preventing or otherwise restricting” the employee from obtaining employment with the employer or “any parent company, subsidiary, division, affiliate or contractor of the employer.”  Significantly, the law only applies in circumstances where Continue reading